One "blindingly obvious" approach to this would be for institutions involved
in curating or otherwise contextualising the sort of practice you are
discussing to create a space on YouTube or MySpace where they can then link
to or otherwise present works that are already being produced in that
environment. I have noted a number of curators using things like delicious
and blog formats to do this and since the very beginning of the web artists
have had links pages where they link to their favourite web based artist's
sites, which is a sort of nascent DIY curatorial practice. The early days of
video were similar, where video artists curated each other's work.

So far as presenting works in galleries most artists do not simply show a
web based piece on a computer in a corner but seek to relate it to its
context and site in some manner. This often means changing the work and/or
incorporating other elements.

As for the debate over what to call work that uses digital or new media I
don't think that needs to be generic. Let the artist choose how they wish to
define it. I am aware that some artists work in the digital arena because
they don't want their work perceived as art at all, so for these "artists"
assimilating creative media based practices into the genre of art would be
discomforting.

Regards

Simon


On 29/8/07 15:04, "Emma Quinn" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello all,
>  
> I realise that this may have been covered by past posts, so please bear
> with me.
>  
> I'm writing an article about the current state of Media Arts Curation
> and was wondering what you think are the current key issues that Media
> Art Curators have to contend with and what will be the prevailing trends
> in the coming years.
>  
> Predicting the direction technology will move in, is not easy, what
> seems important today is usually superseded by something we might not
> have considered yet.
>  
> At the moment the obvious trend in technology based creativity (in terms
> of delivery and style)  is towards home-made content - YouTube, Flickr,
> MySpace etc. The empowering nature of ubiquitous technology means that
> anyone who wants to can create something for public consumption and show
> it on it's own specialised 'gallery' space on the web. This DIY
> aesthetic can be witnessed across associated digital-based arts -
> particularly music (myspace and itunes), photography and film - and
> enables artists to connect directly and instantly with their audience.
> This is less likely to happen or with as much success with say, oil
> painting and the other traditional 'exhibition' arts.
>  
> What does this mean for curators of media arts? And how does it affect
> our relationship with the other arts?
>  
> I can't compete with YouTube -nor would I want to.
>  
> In my experience the pressure on the media art curator is increasing -
> to come up with interesting work, as potentially 'popular' as that on
> YouTube or MySpace - by and for people who don't necessarily understand
> the term 'Media Art'- and then to 'create' an effective virtual or real
> space to present it. If someone can quickly and effectively create a
> film or animation and post it to YouTube, why do artists need so much
> more time, (and money!?) to create something that is potentially going
> to get a fraction of the hits the more popular web sites would receive?
>  
> In fact we come full circle to a debate on just what is art today? If we
> look at say music - there is no differentiation between music made
> purely digitally (and perhaps in a home studio), and that made more
> conventionally. Photography has gone 'digital' without creating a whole
> new genre. Why do we insist on keeping the label 'Media' (the
> clarification was of course useful at the beginning when we were
> mastering the new mediums) to distinguish it from the more traditional
> arts? Is it not now more appropriate to take ownership of the general
> term "Art"? We are working with the artists of today, the artists using
> the common tools of today, the artists that are most likely to connect
> with the society of today.
>  
> So - on a general level should art galleries and institutions still be
> dominated by the white cube gallery spaces and the fixed exhibition
> strategy, with Media Arts acting as the poor relation, sidelined to
> secondary public spaces? Is web-based curation the only way forward for
> (media) arts? Should we be helping artists deliver their work across a
> range of digital platforms - viral, TV, gaming platforms etc? Or are
> live events and installation work the priority - using the conventional
> gallery spaces in unconventional ways?
>  
> Or am I very wrong? Should we be trying to compete with other web-based
> repositories, as THE space for media artists, as opposed to bedroom
> based film makers?
>  
> Should it be a mix of the two?
>  
> Perhaps you think that I'm missing something blindingly obvious here.
>  
> All comments and opinions welcome!
>  
> best wishes
> emma
>  



Simon Biggs
[log in to unmask]
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
AIM: simonbiggsuk

Research Professor in Art, Edinburgh College of Art
[log in to unmask]
http://www.eca.ac.uk/